Dismissed

Arvind Narayan Sawant v. the Municipal Corporation Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jan 2018WP/679/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging a work order for a foot over bridge construction. Citing a prior judgment finding the project in public interest and noting 80% work completion, the court declined interference regarding the specific order but invited local requests for other locations.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; no interference with the challenged work order allowed.

1None appears for the petitioner. Prayer clauses (a) and(c) of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are for challenging the work order dated 23rd January 2015 issued by the Municipal Corporation for construction of foot over bridge near Pravasi Industrial Estate Co-operative Society Limited across Goregaon-Mulund link road, Mumbai. There is other prayer seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to make a survey of the area of Goregaon-Mulund link road with a view to ascertain whether the foot over bridge is necessary at other places.

2The learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation invited our attention to the Judgment and Order dated 8th September 2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in PIL (L) 149 of 2015 (Rajesh Sosa vs. State of Maharashtra and others).

Perusal of the said Judgment and order shows that the challenge was to the same work order dated 23rd January 2015. The Division Bench while dismissing the PIL held that the construction of the said foot over bridge is in the interest of the public at large. Another finding recorded is that the work order has been issued after following procedures established under the law. Therefore, the Division Bench proceeded to dismiss the PIL.

3The learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation on instructions of Shri P.K.Parulekar, Assistant Engineer (Bridges) of first respondent states that approximately 80% of the work of foot over bridge has been completed. We accept the said statement.

4In view of this statement and in view of the aforesaid Judgment and Order, no interference can be made as far as the said work order is concerned. If the petitioner and the residents of the locality are of the view that the construction of another foot over bridge is necessary at some other location, they can always make a representation to the first respondent which is bound to be considered by the first respondent in accordance with law.

Arvind Narayan Sawant v. the Municipal Corporation Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Narayan Sawant v. the Municipal Corporation Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Carter Road Municipal Market Shop Owners Welfare Society and Anr. Vs Municipal Corp. of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Kam Ganesh Co-Operative Housing Society Limited Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Nav Amardeedp Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Suryakant Lalji Savla and 48 Ors. Vs Municipal Corp. for Gr. Mumbai and 6 Ors.

Rajendra Waman Vaity Vs the State Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Vanadana Creations Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greter Mumbai and 2 Others